Talk:Fractal art

several things are missing from the fractal art article

The subject of 'Fractal Art' is really much more diverse than this article shows. I'd like to expand it.

Fractals are pervasive in generating almost all the 'natural looking' textures and patterns used in 3d and 2d texture generators. Bryce, in particular, comes to mind as being almost entirely fractal based in generating everything from its ground planes used as mountains, the clouds and sky effects, trees, textures, and even different types of water surfaces.

In 'Hollywood' fractals are used extensively in special effects where natural looking phenomenon are being depicted. A few quick things that come to mind are some of the magma scenes in one of the Star Wars movies (the scene where Darth fighting Obi Wan on the rock bridge and the hot magma fountains over them and splashes onto the bridge) and the Titanic (the ocean, waves, and boat wake).

As I recall there were also some excellent movie references in the PBS special on Fractals too, though the exact movie (Star Trek?) escapes me, where the fly over of the surface of the planet was the first ever purely 'mathematically generated' landscape in Hollywood history.

Additionally, there are now 3d fractal generating software that uses object oriented user manipulation (Xenodream and Groboto come to mind). Both programs can export calculated fractals into formats that other 3d programs can import. This opens up an entirely new field for visual artists interested in the use of fractals as not only textures, but as objects.

Replyomatic (talk) 23:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that Fractal art contains introductions to some of the standard methods for creating fractal art. The article Orbit trap, for instance, should be moved to this page. I have written about landscapes constructed from Mandelbrot and Julia sets. (Gertbuschmann (talk) 22:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC))

It would be interesting to include references to video game fractal images. Almost all games are now in 3D environments that are always generated by algorithms, most of which are fractal. Of course you have mountains and other landmarks, but textures are fractal by nature. Often, monsters or various adversaries encountered will be fractal in scale of physical size and prowess. Even the leveling of abilities will be considered fractal.

It's interesting fractal art is described as a completely visual art, when many phenomenon now are not visual fractals. Networking has always been fractal, and now with Facebook, Twitter, and other social networking sites, it's easier now than it has ever been before to graph the connections. Would you consider this art? If done correctly, it could be.

Star Trek: The Voyage Home was the first movie to take advantage of fractal derived landscape. (The Pixar Story 2007)

Further research on fractal images can be explored in computer-generated imagery.

Basic Algorithmic Art can be created without a computer, but only on a very small scale.

You start at a specific point on a piece of paper. Then, you line your paper horizontally and vertically to create a grid. Then you find the very basic algorithm and start plugging in your numbers. If there is no difference in your values, you keep the same color, but as you find fluctuating values, you shade your grid squares depending on the varying differences.

The equation you will use is Z(sub)1 = Z(sub)0(sup)2 + C

This process is very labor intensive, and it will always be easier to find a computer program to calculate for you.

Applying this to a screen, you will start at a point, then electricity will flow out. Often branching is seen, but it is not necessary. As the energy flows further away, it will change speed and change the color of the excited pixels on screen.

Note: screen pixels are made up of 3 parts: your red, green, and blue elements. Depending on how these are illuminated, various colors will be perceived. So, although algorithmic art is almost always viewed on a screen, it is calculated within the computer and does not actually occur in the phosphorus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.171.42 (talk) 07:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I always thought this was the most famous example of fractal art: https://users.math.yale.edu/public_html/People/frame/Fractals/Panorama/Art/Hokusai/Hokusai.html very surprised it has not mention here nor in the fractals article. Physicsjock (talk) 23:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

What is fractal art?

The article doesn't say what fractal art IS. I assume that you could say that it is a transformation of an image, or a mapping of an image into another image. Would what we see in a kaleidescope be considered a fractal image? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeButel (talk • contribs) 18:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Art & computer generated imagery

Hi, ideas on Talk:Fractal_landscape#Fractal_images.2C_art.2C_landscapes.2C_surfaces.2C_etc. on how to manage the hierarchy for computer generated art/images and fractal arts, etc. will be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 03:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Fractal Artists?

Are there any notable "fractal artists", i.e. notable enough to rate an article on WP? Where do they exhibit? Have they been featured in any of the main-stream art magazines? When? Exhibited in any of the big-name art galleries? Retrospectives? Embalmed in the collection of some art museum? etc. linas (talk) 04:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I have started an artist section listing a few notable fractal artists. The section still needs expanding along some of the lines you suggest. - Shiftchange (talk) 05:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Bahman Kalantari

Dr. Bahman Kalantari did not invent fractals. If one reads about the History of fractals he is not even mentioned. His patent was filled in 2002 well after Benoît Mandelbrot's ground breaking work in the 1970s. Besides this, on the Bahman Kalantari page at www.cs.rutgers.edu, Doron Zeilberger claims there is a distinction between polynomiography and fractal art. Editors wishing to include information on his work, inventions and patents in polynomiography should create the articles separately. - Shiftchange (talk) 02:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Kalantari is recognized by patent laws as inventing and owning the method of a"pproximating at least one root of the polynomial equation, generating a graphical image as a function of the root of the polynomial equation, and colorating the graphical image to produce a two-dimensional, color rendition thereof. The approximating step can include performing at least one of an infinite number of iteration functions. " That is what I am saying in the article and you delete it, which seems to be a violation of his rights of patents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.6.75.16 (talk) 06:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Violation? What are the talking about? Do these patent laws have stipulations about Wikipedia content? Why does this have to be in the lead section of an type of art article, should this be on the fractal page? We certainly will never need to include a patent number in the lead section. I have already suggested creating a separate article for polynomiography and Bahman Kalantari. Why can't you do that first to support you claims? You can't even get it on the fractal article.

This article is about the topic of fractal art. You are providing undue weight. Can you even provide a WP:RS? I noticed on the Watercolor painting that the patent owner of watercolors is not mentioned. Could this be another so-called violation? - Shiftchange (talk) 09:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

You seem to tell me that "undue weight" is for some minority opinion, but this patent is a fact. You tell me to cite a "reliabile source" but then you tell me that I cannot mention this patent number that proves Dr. Kalantari invented iterated root finding fractal art and that he owns the rights to this algorithm. Make up your mind because you are ignoring the facts on this matter. I don't know why you think you're in charge here, but all of these rules you keep telling me about seem to have nothing to do with the fact that there is a patent and a published book proving Dr. Kalantari's invention and ownership of the art and science of such iteration fractals. Dr. Kalantari does not own a patent for watercolor paintings, and I don't see how that is relevant, so please don't be stupid and make up fake arguments that are irrelevant. Do you have alphabet soup rules explaining why that is wrong? WP:STRAWMAN? WP:IRRELEVANT? If I refer to those, does it make my argument better? Or can we stick to the law, which proves Dr. Kalantari owns these things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.6.75.16 (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

If you read WP:RS you would understand you have the burden of providing a reference. It is up the person making the claim. Which publication or publications supports the statement that Bahman Kalantari invented the art and science of polynomiography? What year were they published? And by whom? At least 18 other references support related statements in the article already. Can you do the same and please WP:CITE. Then your claims can be verified as they have been challenged by me. According to our policy, you need independent, secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality to support your claims.

How about reading WP:SPS? Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. Also try WP:FRINGE. Since when can art be patented? That sounds a little exceptional. These matters are not up to me. I am just following Wikipedia rules and guidelines. - Shiftchange (talk) 16:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand your agenda. What are you talking about, tweets and forums? Dr. Kalantari is a respected computer scientist and mathematician. His book is published by a real publisher that publishes peer-reviewed academic books. His articles are featured in dozens of journals. His patent exists. You are lying about the two sources I am claiming, even though I use them in the text I add. Why do you want to censor Dr. Kalantari's work, and accuse him - the inventor of polynomiography and iteration fractals - of fraud? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.6.75.16 (talk) 01:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no agenda, just policy and guidelines which I am asking you to follow. All I have suggested is you properly cite your sources. Then we can verify the statements. Then we have to reach a consensus on whether is belongs on the fractal art page or elsewhere. I have also suggested you create a page on polynomiography and Bahman Kalantari at least twice.

You have not assummed good faith. You have claimed I violated some rights of patents. Nobody appreciates wild, unsubstantiated accussations. You then missed the point about watercolor painting I made. I was trying to suggest that not every article on an art type must include information on related patent owners. The point about self-published sources is that you cannot add a book written by Kalantari as a source to support a statement about Kalantari. - Shiftchange (talk) 03:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The patent was granted in 2005 (see here) and appears to be describing a method of visualising Newton fractals. Since it is not possible to patent an abstract idea, a mathematical formula or algorithm, or software whose only purpose is to perform mathematical operations (see here), I am not sure exactly what is being patented - perhaps it is the particular computer graphics technique or colouring method. In any case, producing fractal images by applying Newton's method in the complex plane is hardly a new idea - I am fairly certain this was covered in Peitgen and Richter's The Beauty of Fractals in the 1980s, and were probably studied extensivley before then. Without being shown some independent sources that discuss Kalantari's method (and his own textbook does not count as independent), there is no evidence that this method is notable. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

User Shift Change, I do not appreciate you continuing to be rude. You tell me I do not "assume good faith" but then you go to the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fractal and speak very crudely of my attempt to contribute to this encycolpedia that you so forcibly defend. I cite a patent, explaining that dr. Kalantari has invented and patented these ideas, as verified in various academic publications, book, and other sources like conference procedings and yes - even the patent itself. If a prestigious professor at a leading research institution is repeatedly declared the inventor of polynomiography, which is defined to include all these things both of you people are talking about, then how can it not be so? Newspapers, book reviews by mathematicians and computer scientists, publishers and so on. All of these people have hailed Dr. Kalantari's work as revolutionary in art and math. Why now are you objecting, anonymous internet whoever you ares. I certainly don't think Dr. Kalantari, who has ongoing research groups focused on this new art & science that he has invented, would be lying about having invented and poineered these techniques. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.18.57 (talk) 22:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Fractal art

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Fractal art's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Mandelbrot1983":

• From Fractal: Mandelbrot, Benoît B. (1983). The fractal geometry of nature. Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-7167-1186-5. Retrieved 1 February 2012.
• From Fractal dimension: Benoît B. Mandelbrot (1983). The fractal geometry of nature. Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-7167-1186-5. Retrieved 1 February 2012.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I tried to help with this, but the problem appears to be gone now, although I cannot see how it was fixed. Ordinary reader (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Is the dome in this article really a fractal?

The dome in this article has a vaguely "fractal-like" or "kaleidoscopic" appearance, but I'm not sure if it's really a fractal. Would it be misleading to describe it as a fractal if it wasn't generated by a recursive algorithm, but instead drawn by hand? Is it accurate to refer to "fractal-inspired" artwork as fractal art? Jarble (talk) 07:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Unless this image was based on a recursive algorithm, I think it might be more accurate to describe it as visionary art or psychedelic art, although I'm not sure which of these two descriptions would be better. Jarble (talk) 07:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Being bold: about to delete "The Fractal Art Manifesto" section

Feel free to revert but *only* do so if you can show notability, please - by linking to coverage in reliable third party sources.

Kerry Mitchell doesn't have his own Wikipedia page or appear in the section of notable Fractal Artists, and his books are apparently self-published through Lulu - yet the article gives prominent coverage to him and his "Fractal Art Manifesto". Not cool.

As brilliant as his art may be (for all I know!), Lulu publications don't prove notability because literally anyone can self-publish something through them. Googling his name suggests he is non-notable. At first glance, it looks like a non-brainer that this definitely shouldn't be in Wikipedia.

I don't want to assume bad faith but this looks like self-promotion? What I'm about to delete can be restored in a heartbeat, but shouldn't be unless citations can be given to show that Kerry Mitchell isn't just a random guy with an opinion. Having a footnote linking to the manifesto itself isn't enough. We need coverage in reliable sources.Señor Service (talk) 22:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I was surprised to see this "Fractal Art Manifesto" in the article. Coming to the talk page, it looks like someone re-added the manifesto, without discussing it here or giving any evidence of notability (the only ref for this passage seems to be the manifesto itself). I googled "Fractal Art Manifesto" in quotes and got fewer than six hundred results - none of which looked like major publications. So I'm amazed if it's notable enough to deserve coverage in Wikipedia. With that in mind, could the editor who wants it included please make a case for its notability here, on the talk page? Otherwise, it's liable to be removed again. Jas mc 2016 (talk) 11:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

BTW, I make no comment on whether the author of the manifesto is himself notable. However, please note WP:NOTINHERITED (the guidance states that notability is not inherited, and gives "The artist is famous, so the album is notable" and "This poet is notable, so all his individual poems must be notable too" as examples of arguments to avoid). I will check back in the New Year and remove references to the manifesto if a) they are still here and b) no one has provided evidence of notability from one or more reliable third party sources. Jas mc 2016 (talk) 00:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Images

I agree that the current number of images is sufficient. Unless the text is substantially expanded the page becomes unbalanced. - Shiftchange (talk) 01:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

There are already rather many, and not all are well integrated with the text. Ideally each one would be discussed directly in the main text, either as an individual image or as a class. Right now the feeling is of a gallery where - it seems - would-be artists imagine they might add their own work; that's something that ought to be changed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fractal art. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111001183453/http://www.uiowa.edu/~commstud/resources/digitalmedia/wright.html to http://www.uiowa.edu/~commstud/resources/digitalmedia/wright.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Definition of fractals seems a little too non-technical

The article lists this as the definition of a fractal:

“ Fractals are any of various extremely irregular curves or shapes for which any suitably chosen part is similar in shape to a given larger or smaller part when magnified or reduced to the same size.”

citing Merriam-Webster as a source. This is a decent definition, however considering how the rest of this article is moderately technical, I thought it would be better to at least mention the formal definition of fractals.

However since I’m new to Wikipedia, I’m not sure if I’m the best judge of what should and shouldn’t be added to an article, so I decided to open a talk page instead. Captainsnacc (talk) 00:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Go for it. The worse that can happen is they will remove it if they don't think it belongs to the article, but I don't quite see why it shouldn't be in there. Mejorasi723 (talk) 07:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)